During the inquiry into a proper explanation for anything, whether it be a scientific explanation, a philosophical question, a personal issue or someone’s behaviour, people tend to make the mistake of not looking at alternative explanations enough. Oftentimes we do this because an explanation seems apparent: we have a reasonable explanation and conclude that since it makes reasonable sense, it must be the case. This is often subconscious, and is called abduction or inference to the best explanation. Inference to the best explanation is a philosophical tool through which you attempt to find the best explanation for something. ‘Best’ explanations need to be simple, coherent, testable and comprehensive. We often find an explanation that covers these features or seems to be the most obvious for a situation, without properly considering other explanations. This will make us fail to see it when the proper explanation for something might be different than the most apparent one – it might, for example, be more complex than the simplest explanation. Additionally, sometimes we find ourselves faced with a false dilemma: we think we have to choose between two possible explanations for something, which are both not fully satisfying. However, if one looks deeper, in many cases there are more possible explanations that one could choose from, but that are not initially presented or have not initially come to mind. Lastly, we often subconsciously make use of induction to draw a conclusion: because the last few times we saw x, it was because of y, we assume that this time we are seeing x, y is again the reason. Induction involves conclusions that are based on probability. With induction, the conclusion is very likely, but not a necessity. On the opposite end, with deduction, the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily: there is no other option. Even though induction is something we do very often, it is quite weak in comparison to deduction. Again, while sometimes useful and sometimes true, it can lead to hasty conclusions.

Oftentimes it might be tempting to not dive deeper and try to ‘keep things simple’. It may be hard to look for another explanation when the one we assume seems so obviously true. It may also be difficult to consider alternative explanations when the situation you are faced with appears to be a dilemma between just two opposing choices or options. A skilled philosopher will often try to look deeper than the most apparent explanation of something and consider the issue from all possible angles, looking past what appears most likely and deeper into what other possible explanations may or may not fit better. They will try to call out false dilemmas and introduce further possible explanations, or will try to steer people away from a most likely explanation towards something less apparent, but more fitting. Even when they do not know which explanation is eventually the correct one, they will refrain from judgement or at least their judgement will be nuanced. The skill they use for this, the philosophical tool alternative explanations, might not always lead to the right answer, but it will hopefully always lead to a more complete picture of the possible answers. A more complete picture of the possible answers will help us make more nuanced choices for possible next steps or draw more nuanced conclusions.

So, as we have seen, the systematic consideration of alternative explanations by using it as a tool in different kinds of situations might help us to find a more suitable answer to a question or challenge. However, this is something that is often easier said than done. In this chapter, the reader will find a step-by-step plan on how to use alternative explanations in general and three different cases to which one can apply the tool alternative explanations regarding polarization: in the media, in our daily interactions and in student progress meetings in the educational system. The reader will also be able to find practical exercises one can do when trying to deal with polarization that relate to the tool alternative explanations.

Applying the philosophical tool alternative explanations in general

How do we use alternative explanations as a philosophical tool? As mentioned, within this chapter, you will find three different applications of the tool that can help you see how to use it. While the way to use it will differ in each situation, the usage of this tool generally follows a certain pattern. This pattern is shown in a step-by-step method.

To illustrate the use of this step-by-step method, it might be helpful to apply it to an example.

This example is quite simple, but you can apply the tool alternative explanations to much more complicated and philosophical issues and phenomena. The important thing here is that you must not take for granted the ‘obvious’ explanation for something, but keep your options open, and look for other explanations. By doing this, you might find a better explanation for the phenomenon. A ‘better’ explanation might sometimes refer to one that is simpler, and requires fewer factors, or one that better covers every aspect of the phenomenon you are trying to explain, or one that unifies two seemingly opposite perspectives and is therefore more nuanced. When applying the tool alternative explanations, you can ask yourself many different questions during step two (reflect): ask yourself, is there a simpler way I could explain this? Did I take into account every detail that is presented to me? And if you seem to be presented with only two options, ask yourself: could there be a third one?

Even if none of the alternative explanations you find turn out to be as well-suited for the phenomenon as the obvious, first explanation, it is still useful to look for these alternatives, as by disproving them, you’ve made good arguments for the first explanation. If you, in our example, indeed found a broken vase on the floor, you would have found more evidence for your cat-explanation. So, looking for alternative explanations and following the simple step-by-step plan is productive no matter the outcome; whether you find a better explanation among the alternatives or you don’t, you end up with a stronger explanation by broadening your view.

Alternative explanations and other philosophical tools

There are no key authors or main works linked to the philosophical tool alternative explanations. However, evaluating alternatives goes all the way back to the philosophy of Aristotle (384-322 BCE). For instance in his practical philosophy, Aristotle believed that every action has a goal, is aimed at something (telos), to reach the ultimate end (eudaimonia). To get to this ultimate goal, he used a form of evaluating alternatives by asking himself: “Which option best contributes to achieving the ultimate good?” Another example where Aristotle uses a form of alternative explanations in his philosophy is in the deliberation process. In this process, he reasoned backwards from the desired end (eudaimonia) towards the desired means. In this reasoning, he considered feasible options and not only abstract ideals.

As we have seen, the philosophical tool alternative explanations is linked to inference to the best explanation (abduction). The best explanation for a set of facts was first used by the pragmatist Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) who emphasized that abduction is the starting point of scientific inquiry. When we use abduction, we propose the simplest and most coherent explanation and then test it through induction and/or deduction. The philosophical tool inference to the best explanation is further developed by Pierre Duhem. Duhem argued that scientific hypotheses cannot be tested in isolation, because they are part of a theoretical framework of assumptions. Willard Van Orman Quine extended this holism to all knowledge and argued that our framework of hypotheses (web of beliefs) faces experience as a whole, not as separate hypotheses. Therefore, if you adjust one belief, you have to revise all others to maintain overall coherence. In philosophy of science, the Duhem-Quine thesis expanded inference to the best explanation into a holistic framework where explanations are judged by coherence with the entire system of beliefs, instead of being judged as separate, isolated data.

A critical question that could be asked when using the philosophical tool alternative explanations is whether philosopher’s in searching for alternative explanations, should be constrained by thoughts of what is possible. Because if an alternative explanation cannot be possible, how can it lead to a more nuanced or more complete explanation of the phenomenon? To address this critique, the philosophical tool of possibility and impossibility can be used. Here you investigate the alternative explanations you came up with in the sense of their logical possibility, their physical possibility, and/or their practical possibility to investigate whether your alternatives are relevant or not. For instance in the scenario of the missing vase, you might have thought of the possibility that the laser beam gun of your nephew knocked your vase over. However, since your nephew was in bed 300 kilometers away during the hours that you were not at home, and teleportation is still not possible, this makes the explanation physically impossible. And since a laser beam gun is too expensive for your nephew to buy or is illegal to be in possession of, this explanation is practically (financially and politically)  impossible.

Polarization and the philosophical tool alternative explanations

In this chapter, we will apply alternative explanations as philosophical tool to the topic of polarization. Polarization is the sharp contrast between two directly opposing groups, without the option of a compromise. In recent years, polarization in our society has increased. The political right and left wing seem to have gotten further and further removed from each other, and this movement seems to impact the rest of society as well. Opinions become more and more extreme, and as a reaction to one extreme opinion, the opposing side feels the need to become extreme as well.

In solving polarization specifically, the philosophical tool alternative explanations can be a powerful one. When both sides take a moment to look for alternative explanations, what they may find is a way to come together. If two groups are opposing each other, one thinking ‘x is true’, and the other thinking ‘x is false’, they will never come together – they are completely opposed, there is no room for compromise. If an alternative explanation could be formed, you might be able to bring two seemingly opposing groups together. Instead of only assuming that ‘x’ either has to be true or false, maybe ‘x’ is actually sometimes true, and sometimes false? Maybe ‘x is true, except when y’, or maybe one group isn’t even talking about ‘x’, but is it actually talking about ‘z’, and has misunderstood what ‘x’ is? The application of the tool alternative explanations can open new roads when it seems a dead end has been reached, as is the case in polarization.

The tool description above has been written in collaboration with two other fellow students. In what follows, I (Anita) will give an example of polarization between teachers during student progress meetings and present a leaflet that teachers can use to refrain from jumping to conclusions about student behaviour, hopefully preventing polarization.

Using alternative explanations in polarization between teachers during student progress meetings

In high school in the Netherlands, teachers of the same class discuss the behaviour, wellbeing and academic results of their students two or three times per academic year in student progress meetings. This results in students being promoted to or held back from the next year. During these student progress meetings, I witnessed multiple times that teachers cannot put aside their personal beliefs and values to the detriment of an objective view on the student’s behaviour. These different views of teachers on the student’s behaviour even resulted in a form of polarization because the disagreement between teachers of what constitutes the truth (factual polarization) led to contrasting viewpoints between them, without the possibility of a compromise. In addition, because teachers differed very strongly in their opinion of where the behaviour of the student stems from, this even affected the relationship between teachers. So their contrasting viewpoints led to them forming an opinion about opposing groups (affective polarization) within the teacher staff.

In addition to the fact that polarization in student progress meetings affects the relationship between teachers, polarization between teachers can lead to unequal opportunities for students. For instance when discussing the promotion of a student, conclusions led by prejudices, can positively or negatively influence the decision concerning one student but not another, when the decision for promotion would have been the same if the prejudice had been left out of the discussion.

Sometimes, the behaviour of a student can be explained by circumstances that are known to the teachers, for instance illness, depression or influences from peers. In many cases, there are no other circumstances known. Either way, it can be that alternative explanations are necessary to explain the observed behaviour. In order to not jump to conclusions led by prejudices, and not cause polarization between teachers, it is important that teachers are trained during or before student progress meetings to consider alternative explanations for student behaviour.

Expectations and decisions on promoting a student are connected to each other, because expectations and prejudices determine behaviour (Timmermans, Kuyper, & van der Werf, 2015). Polarization between (groups of) teachers will have an influence on equal opportunities for students. I noticed that it is quite common that the same student shows different behaviour in different classes, and that it would be a good idea for teachers to look beyond their classroom and look at this student with an open mind. Perhaps the philosophical tool of alternative explanations can assist teachers to be able to do this.

Prejudices from teachers probably stem from perceived behaviour towards themselves. This effect is known as the attributional ambiguity theory. Attributional ambiguity explains that social interactions are interpreted by persons who themselves feel they belong to a stigmatized group and the uncertainty that arises from that makes them question whether others’ reactions are based on their personal characteristics or their group membership. This uncertainty makes it difficult for them to discern the true motives of the other person behind the behaviour in the social interaction (Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008).

Alternative explanations are thought of to make the explanation that you choose to work with the most likely. Because if you haven’t thought of alternative explanations, how will you know that the explanation that you give for a certain phenomenon is the right one? As a bonus, when the meeting is directed by the strong belief of one teacher and the atmosphere is affected by this, thinking of alternative explanations together can break the ice.

One way for teachers to think of alternative explanations when discussing students’ behaviour, is by using the step-by-step method described earlier (step 1, stop; step 2, reflect; step 3, research). Thinking of alternative explanations for student behaviour is a way of developing critical thinking. According to Brookfield (2012), critical thinking is a social learning process that at the same time requires individual thinking to formulate one’s thoughts for social interaction. We think critically when we act based on evidence and we need to know our actions agree with the effects we wish them to have. The important question that is now often asked in a student progress meeting is whether this particular student is thought to be able to finish high school in our institute. Will our curricular and didactical program be fit for this student in the end? When we take into account the definition of critical thinking as formulated by Brookfield (2012), this question indeed entails whether our actions now (in the student progress meeting) will have the desirable effect (for the student to finish high school in our institute). On the other hand, I have seen in student progress meetings that teachers answer this question based on a gut feeling, not needing to provide evidence for their opinion. In addition, the underlying assumption is always that this particular student themselves wishes to finish high school in our school. To overcome this last point, the mentor talks to students before student progress meetings about precisely this assumption. That teachers answer the important question from based on their gut feeling without having to provide valid evidence, is not overcome. Therefore, I developed a leaflet for teachers to use to apply critical thinking in student progress meetings. The use of this leaflet makes teachers stop (step 1) and holds instructions on how to reflect (step 2) and research (step 3) student behaviour, leading to an informed intervention.

Student progress meetings are intended to come up with possible interventions for student progress. To prevent these interventions from stemming from individual prejudices, applying this method will lead to informed interventions. This leaflet is based on a method for developing critical thinking developed by Brookfield (2012). By using this leaflet (step 1: stop), teachers can formulate questions to find out what other alternative explanations are available for student behaviour and thereby apply step 2 (reflect) and 3 (research) of the tool alternative explanations.

When this method of critical thinking was investigated among students, it appeared that they learned critical thinking best when it happened in groups, because it is easier to discover assumptions and create alternative perspectives together with a group of peers. When we apply this finding to the student progress meeting, the teachers are the ones that have to learn to think critically about student progress. Using the leaflet of instructions will help teachers learn this philosophical skill. However, to prevent ‘groupthinking’ as herd mentality from happening, which is the opposite of critical thinking, the group discussion should be controlled, for instance by the leaflet with a scheme on how to take an informed action.

If you want to practice formulating alternative explanations for interactions, you can use these philosophical exercises. Because this application of alternative explanations is on polarization in student progress meetings, the examples provided here are for teachers. Of course, these exercises can be performed by anyone who wishes to investigate their own expectations in interaction with others.

Sources

Alesse, F. (2019). Aristotle on prescription : deliberation and rule-making in Aristotle’s practical philosophy. Brill.

Baggini, J., & Fosl, P. S. (2010). The philosopher’s toolkit: A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [bibguru.com]

Browne, N., & Keeley, S. M. (2006). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (8th ed.). Pearson.

Davis, W. A. (2005). Contextualist theories of knowledge. Acta Analytica, 20(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-005-1002-6

Huppes-Cluysenaer, E. A., & Coelho, N. M. M. S. (2023). Aristotle on truth, dialogue, justice and decision. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45485-1

Mendes, W. B., Major, B., McCoy, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278

Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2010). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

SPARQtools. (n.d.). Fishbowldiscussions-research. Stanford University. https://sparqtools.org/fishbowldiscussions-research/ [sparqtools.org]

The House of Coaching. (n.d.). Listening, summarising and deepening (LSD). https://thehouseofcoaching.com/en/cards/listening-summarising-and-deepening-lsd [thehouseof…aching.com]

Timmermans, A. C., Kuyper, H., & van der Werf, G. (2015). Accurate, inaccurate, or biased teacher expectations: Do Dutch teachers differ in their expectations at the end of primary education? British journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 459-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12087

Zoglauer, T. (2023). Constructed truths: Truth and knowledge in a post-truth world. Springer Vieweg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39942-9